Content area
Full Text
In this second annual survey of conflict of laws cases in the Singapore Year Book of International Law, eight cases' will be considered.2 In addition, there will be a legislation note at the end.3 Before looking at these cases, it is useful to make three preliminary comments. First, generally, only cases from the High Court and Court of Appeal will be considered. In exceptional situations, cases from the Subordinate Courts will be considered. In this year's survey, one case from the District Court is considered. secondly, conflict of laws cases often relate to other areas of law. In these situations, this survey will only consider those parts of the case that relate to conflict of laws. Finally, 2 cases occurring in the first quarter of 2004, Kaki Bukit Industries Park Pte Ltd ν Ng Man Heng and Others4 and The "Hyundai Fortune"5 have already been considered in the previous year's survey.
I. FOREIGN CUSTODY ORDER, RECOGNITION, RES JUDICATA AND STAY: AB v AC AND ANOTHER APPLICATION6
This case involved various cross applications by a Singaporean mother and a Norwegian father with respect to their child. Joint custody of the child was obtained by way of a consent order in the Norwegian courts in early 2002. The couple divorced later that year. In early 2003, in contravention of the consent order, the mother brought the child to Singapore. She has since refused to return the child to Norway and applied for the custody and maintenance of the child in Singapore. The father applied for, inter alia, a stay of the applicant mother's proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens and res judicata.
On the application for a stay on the grounds of forum non conveniens, the court applied the usual principles from The Spiliada7 and concluded that there was a preponderance of connecting factors pointing to Norway. The proceedings could therefore be stayed on this ground.
On the application for a stay based on res judicata, Hong DJ concluded that it was unclear if a custody order could be said to be final and conclusive for the purposes of recognition and enforcement. Interestingly, the court went on to, in effect, recognise that order on the basis that it was made by the court...